Madhav Chandra Srivastava And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48838 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-868 Year-2007 Thana- SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSiwan ====================================================== 1.
Madhav Chandra Srivastava 2.
Amit Chandra Srivastava 3.
Abhishek Chandra Srivastava 1, 2 and 3 sons of Late Tara Chandra Srivastava 4.
Smt. Shyama Devi wife of Late Tara Chandra Srivastava All 1 - 4 Resident of village - Thatheri Bazar, Ram Chandra Bhawan, P.S.+ District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rani Devi Alias Manju Devi Wife of Madhav Chandra Srivastava Resident of village - Thatheri Bazar, Ram Chandra Bhawan, P.S. + District - Buxar, Daughter of Sri Biswanath Prasad Saxena, presently residing at Mohalla - Purani Kila, Baniya Toli, P.S. and District - Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar and Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocates For the State :
Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 16-05-2019 When the Court proceeded to hear the matter, Mr. Kundan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, though addressed the Court for sometime, but then sought adjournment on the ground that Mr. Ranjeet Kumar would assist the Court. The Court finds the same to be unjustified.
2. Learned APP for the State is present.
3. The Court would note that on 08.05.2019 and 09.05.2019 also, on prayer made by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48838 of 2014(12) dt.16-05-2019 2/2 petitioners, the matter was adjourned and in fact in order dated 08.05.2019, it was recorded that the matter was being adjourned by way of last indulgence. Despite that again adjournment has been granted.
4. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are repeatedly taking time in the present case, despite there being an order of stay since 23.11.2017, which the Court would not permit. Further, from such conduct, it is apparent that the petitioners are not serious in final adjudication.
5. In the aforesaid background, the application stands dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T